Patent Trial and Appeal Board Issues First Final Written Decision Under America Invents Act Proceeding

by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued the first final written decision in one of the new proceedings created by the America Invents Act (AIA). The decision was issued in CBM2012-00001 (Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.), filed under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents ("CBM review"), and found the challenged patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision will rightfully receive attention as demonstrating the USPTO's willingness to strike down claims previously issued by the agency. Equally noteworthy, however, is the decision's discussion dedicated to applicable claim construction in AIA proceedings, which underscores the difference between the applicable "broadest reasonable" construction standard before the PTAB and the significantly different standard applied at the district court level.

Background of Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.

In 2007, Versata Software, Inc. sued SAP America, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent 6,553,350. The case proceeded to trial and a jury found infringement by SAP and awarded damages. The district court denied SAP's post-trial motion challenging the infringement verdict but held a new trial on damages. In the second trial, the jury awarded lost-profits and reasonable royalty damages. The district court upheld those awards.

Both parties appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on October 11, 2011.1 The CAFC affirmed the jury's infringement verdict and damages award, but vacated and remanded a permanent injunction as overbroad.2

SAP subsequently filed a petition for CBM review with the USPTO on September 16, 2012, challenging claims 17 and 26-29 of the ’350 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patentable subject matter), § 102 (anticipation by prior art), and ? 112 (failure to satisfy written description or enablement requirements). On January 9, 2013, the PTAB granted the petition and instituted a CBM review trial with respect to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102 only. In exchange for dropping the 102 challenge, SAP requested, and was granted, an expedited trial schedule.

Versata responded to the petition by contending that the challenged claims were patentable under § 101 and that the PTAB had employed an incorrect claim construction standard in construing the ’350 patent claims. SAP's reply to the patent owner response maintained that the claims were unpatentable and that the PTAB had construed the claims properly in its decision to institute CBM review. Both parties requested an oral hearing, which was held on April 17, 2013. As previously noted, the PTAB issued its final decision on June 11, 2013, invalidating claims 17 and 26-29 of the ’350 patent as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The PTAB's Position on Claim Construction in Post-Grant Proceedings

In its decision, the PTAB emphasizes that, for purposes of post-grant proceedings, claims are construed under the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard as opposed to the Federal Circuit's Phillips standard for district court litigation. It reasoned that "the new AIA reviews before the Office, like reissue and reexamination proceedings, provide patent owners with an opportunity to amend their claims. . . . The use of the broadest reasonable interpretation encourages patent owners to remove ambiguities and to narrow their claims by amendment, such that the inventor's contribution to the art is expressed in clear, precise and unambiguous terms."3 The PTAB also cited the legislative history of the AIA in determining that the USPTO had the appropriate discretion and imperative to require the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in such proceedings.4

It is apparent that the PTAB and the USPTO view the CBM review proceedings, and post-grant proceedings more generally, as an opportunity for de novo review of subject patents rather than an extension of traditional district court litigation. Thus, patents under review are more easily subject to attack from prior art than would generally be the case in district court litigation. Additionally, the different construction standards mean that claim construction positions taken in post-grant proceedings will not necessarily be binding in litigation (and vice versa).

The PTAB's Patent Eligibility Calculus in Post-Grant Proceedings

The PTAB also made clear that it will not hesitate to invalidate claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C § 101. In invalidating the ’350 patent claims under review, the PTAB emphasized that "mere recitation of computer implementation or hardware in combination with an abstract idea [] is not itself a significant, meaningful limitation on the scope of the claims."5 In addition, the PTAB noted that Versata failed to establish any "specific" steps appended to an abstract idea to provide a meaningful limitation within the scope of § 101.6 It is apparent that the PTAB takes a dim view of claims that "do not add meaningful limitations beyond the recited abstract idea and, in practical effect, preempt the abstract idea."7


Defendants accused of infringing business method patents should strongly consider CBM review as part of their overall defense strategy. The PTAB has made clear that patent claims under challenge will be construed under a more liberal "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard that does not depend on (and differs from) claim constructions in associated district court litigation proceedings. Additionally, the PTAB has signaled that claims including questionably patent-eligible material are susceptible to attack under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, CBM review may provide an efficient and effective alternative or supplement to traditional patent infringement litigation.

1 Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., Nos. 2012-1029, -1049.

2 Versata Software Inc. v. SAP America Inc., 106 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

3 Final Decision at 9-10.

4 See id. at 11-18.

5 Final Decision at 30.

6 Final Decision at 32.

7 See id. at 34 (emphasis added).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.